Nif money and politics report

NIF Report on the Issues

20 0 1

Money and Politics Who Owns Democracy?

by John Doble Research Associates, Inc.

Money and PoliticsWho Owns Democracy?

A Report for the National Issues Forumsby Doble Research Associates

November 2001

National Issues Forums (NIF)NIF is a nonpartisan nationwide network of educational and community organizations that deliberateabout nationwide issues. NIF forums do not advocate a specific solution or point of view. Rather, deliber-ative forums provide a way for citizens to exchange ideas and experiences with one another, and makemore thoughtful and informed decisions. For more information about NIF, contact National IssuesForums Research, 100 Commons Road, Dayton, OH 45459-2777. Phone: (800) 433-7834. www.nifi.org

Doble Research AssociatesDoble Research specializes in exploring public opinion about complex public issues. For more information, contact Doble Research at 375 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632. (201) 568-7200. www.dobleresearch.com

©copyright National Issues Forums Institute 2001

About This ReportThis report is an analysis of what happened in National Issues Forums (NIF) that tookplace in 44 states and the District of Columbia, on “Money and Politics,” a sample of thehundreds of NIF forums that continue to take place across the country. To learn howcitizens feel about this issue, Doble Research Associates, a public interest consulting firm,analyzed what happened in these forums, including questionnaire results from 1,457participants who sent in a questionnaire by August 1, 2001.

National Issues Forums bring together citizens to deliberate and make choices aboutchallenging social and political issues of the day. They have addressed issues such as theeconomy, education, health care, foreign affairs, and crime. Throughout the nation,thousands of civic, service, and religious organizations, as well as libraries, high schools,and colleges sponsor forums. The sponsoring organizations select topics based on citizens’concerns, then design and coordinate their own forum programs.

Contents

A Summary of People’s Thinking as They Deliberatedpresents an overview of the themes that emerged from the forums convened in 44 states and the District of Columbia ........................1

The Framework for Deliberation describes the framework used in the forums................................................3

Working Through: People’s Thinking as They Deliberateddescribes in detail how people felt about money and politics as they deliberated in a forum ..................................................4

Questions and Answers about the Forumsaddresses key questions about participants’ views on the issue .......................................................................................13

The Impact of Deliberationdescribes how people felt after the forums .................................................18

Additional Information:Deliberation by High School Students summarizes what happened when 581 highschool students around the country took up the issue of Money and Politics.Questionnaire Results shows the results of the pre- and postforum questionnaires.Methodology explains the research conducted for this report.About National Issues Forums describes NIF in greater detail.About Doble Research provides information about the firm that prepared this report.

Doble Research Associates 1

A Summary of People’s Thinking as They Deliberated

1. The Impact of Money on Politics: Participants in National Issues Forums on “Money andPolitics” saw the influence of money on the political system as damaging and harmful in threeways: first, they said, money warps political decision making so that the public interest isroutinely subordinated to special interests; second, they said it skews the election process,giving well-financed candidates a great and unfair advantage; third, they said it alienatesordinary Americans who often feel that their voices do not count.

2. The Impact of Money on the Public Dialogue: Forum participants said that beyond itsharmful impact on government and elections, money corrupts the “public dialogue,” theexchanges and ideas espoused by candidates, officeholders, and other public leaders that citi-zens hear, consider, and deliberate about. Forum participants operationally defined the issueof money and politics in public terms – in terms of the public’s right to hear. Money, theysaid, both limits the voices that people hear and amplifies some at the expense of others. Thenet effect, they said, is that many people do not hear leaders who speak to their concerns orarticulate their deepest values.

3. Money and Politics and the Media: Understanding how people define the issue helpsclarify why so many Americans feel frustrated by the news media. Instead of helping thepublic understand complex issues and sort through information and arguments about them,forum participants identified five ways that the news media exacerbate the problem.

4. The Desire for a Level Playing Field: Defining the issue in terms of people’s right to hearor listen also helps explain why so many participants said we should reduce the influence ofmoney by “leveling the playing field” in terms of elections.

5. Easier Access to the Media to Level the Playing Field: A large majority of participantssaid the way to “level the playing field” is give all major candidates for public office free orlow-cost airtime on television and radio. That way, they said, the public would be able to hearmore clearly the voices and messages of those who seek to lead.

6. Using Public Financing to Level the Playing Field: A majority of participants said the wayto “level the playing field” is through the public financing of political campaigns, which wouldenable more voices to be heard while simultaneously reducing the importance of contribu-tions. However, a sizable minority opposed this idea.

7. Changed Perceptions about Lobbyists and Special Interests: It is often the case that aspeople deliberate about a complex issue in what is often a two-hour National Issues Forum,they learn more about it and have time to consider other points of view. A rather commonoutcome is that people’s attitudes are modified as they take in new information orconsiderations. In these forums, participants’ views about lobbyists and special interestschanged, with a good deal of people’s initial antipathy melting as they learned more anddeliberated about the role of these groups.

8. Changed Perceptions about Disclosure: Almost without exception, participants favoredfull and immediate disclosure of all campaign contributions, including disclosure in the mediaand on the Internet. But as they deliberated, participants said disclosure would not curb theinfluence of money or remedy the problems they had identified.

Doble Research Associates2

9. Mixed Feelings about Direct Democracy Measures: Participants’ attitudes about thisaspect of the issue also evolved over the course of the forums. While most favored the idea ofgiving the public more direct say in running public affairs, a fair number also saw problemswith the idea and gave it, at best, their qualified support.

10. Interlocking Issues: Participants see “money and politics” not as a single issue, but as anumber of connected, interlocking issues. A woman from Panama City, Florida, explained itthis way:

We should pursue the issue of allowing candidates free airtime on radio andtelevision in order to have their voices heard without having to cram their ideasinto exorbitantly expensive 30-second spots. If candidates’ views were mademore accessible to the public, [people] might take a greater interest in picking aqualified candidate and not be so disillusioned with what they consider to becorrupt leadership. And qualified leaders would be more likely to serve thepublic interest.


The Framework for DeliberationParticipants deliberated using the NIF issue book, Money and Politics prepared by PublicAgenda in collaboration with the Kettering Foundation. Rather than conforming to the ideasof any one advocate, each approach represents a distinct set of American priorities and views.The issue book outlines the issue in a nonpartisan way and presents three approaches toaddressing the issue:

Approach 1: Reform the Campaign Fund-Raising SystemThis approach says that democracy cannot thrive unless political candidates have enoughmoney to inform citizens about their competing ideas and qualifications. The problem is thatmore than 90 percent of political contributions come from wealthy contributors and specialinterests, which often have matters pending before government. As a result, many electionsare fund-raising competitions, and the democratic principle of “one person, one vote” iscorrupted into “one donor, much influence.” In this view, the nation must regain control ofelections by choosing from a menu of reform options that includes publicly funded campaignsand regulations that prevent special interests from subverting the public interest. The nationis moving in this direction, but it’s been a halfhearted effort lacking a real commitment toclean up politics. It’s time to get serious about making real reforms.

Approach 2: Rein In Lobbyists and Politicians This approach says that campaign finance reforms will only disappoint and disillusioncitizens because they focus narrowly on political campaign contributions, which are dwarfedby the billions annually spent on lobbying politicians. So reforms that curb special interests’spending on political campaigns merely redirect the flow of money in politics, sending itdeeper underground. In this view, the way to reduce money’s corrupting influence is byexerting much more control over the way politicians and bureaucrats at every level ofgovernment interact with special interest lobbies. In addition to new restrictions on lobbying,there also need to be more restrictions on politicians. Ballot measures, which permit voters insome states to enact or repeal laws when politicians ignore the public will, should bepermitted in all states and at the federal level. Laws should also make it easier for voters torecall elected officials who aren’t serving the public interest.

Approach 3: Publicize All Political Donations, Don’t Regulate ThemThis approach says that our representative system of democracy has withstood the test oftime and, until the 1970s, worked well without much regulation of campaign finance. Then,the Watergate scandal precipitated a rush to regulate political contributions, restrictingeveryone’s freedom. But freedom resists regulation, and the reform effort backfired,systematically distorting our democratic system and causing more damage than theoccasional bribery scandal ever did. Elections are now tipped toward incumbents, celebrities,and the rich. Most challengers cannot raise enough money to compete. Political gridlock isepidemic. To revive democracy, we need to free candidates and advocates to raise the moneythey need for competitive campaigns that draw public attention to important issues anddecisions. A new requirement for fuller and faster disclosure of all political donations is thebest way to deter corruption and head off conflicts of interest.


Working Through: People’s Thinking as They Deliberated

1. The Impact of Money on Politics: Participants in National IssuesForums on “Money and Politics” saw the influence of money on thepolitical system as damaging and harmful in three ways: first, they said,money warps political decision making so that the public interest isroutinely subordinated to special interests; second, they said it skews theelection process, giving well-financed candidates a great and unfairadvantage; third, they said it alienates ordinary Americans who often feelthat their voices do not count.

The Public’s Starting Point: As participants took up the issue of money and politics inforums in 44 states and the District of Columbia, they overwhelmingly began with one idea:money, they said, translates into political power, which has a corrosive, damaging impact onour political system and the public’s welfare. Indeed, some defined political power in terms ofmoney. “Money is power,” said a man from Dallas. A woman from Sumter, South Carolina,expressed the same thought, saying, “Money and power go together.”

In forum after forum, participants said money shapes decision making so that government,especially at the federal level, consistently puts the special interests of the rich and powerfulahead of the common public interest. A man from Des Moines said, “Common Cause andothers can document that the folks who vote for a special interest like, say, big tobacco arealmost always the [ones who] get contributions from that interest.” A moderator from MountPleasant, Michigan, said “Our people felt that votes can just be bought.” A moderator fromHonolulu said that in a series of forums at and around the state capital, participants felt“political decisions are made to benefit moneyed interests, not the public interest.”

Participants said the integrity of elected officials is regularly compromised because they oweso much to the donors who helped them win election. To a roomful of nodding heads, awoman at a forum in a correctional institution in Muncy, Pennsylvania, said “Once in office,campaign promises are out the window [because of] the candidate owing the campaign donorhis or her money’s worth.” A man at a forum in St. Paul expressed the same thought saying,“Anyone who doesn’t believe [big contributors] expect something in return [for theircontributions] is living in a dream world.” A moderator from El Paso said, “Our people feltthat politicians can be bought.”

Participants did not much distinguish between the two major political parties. Some pointedto the recent tax cut while others cited presidential pardons as examples of influence by bigcontributors who expect something in return. And virtually without exception, participantsagreed that if contributors do not get something tangible, they at least get special access tomake their case. A moderator from Valparaiso, Indiana, said “Our group felt that thosewithout money constantly have to knock on doors and beg an audience.” An Oregon mansaid, “I don’t have the kind of access to resources [that would enable me] to really have animpact on the decisions elected officials make.”

Beyond its impact on decision making, money, participants said, has a second effect – itskews the entire election process. “People in our forum felt that elections are ‘bought’ because


the candidates who can raise the most money are the ones who get elected,” said a moderatorfrom DuPage, Illinois. Nearly four out of five agreed that candidates depend too heavily onlarge campaign gifts from wealthy donors.

Moreover, participants said, the ability of even the most-dedicated public official to do his orher job is impaired by the constant, pressing need to raise money for the next campaign. “Ourpeople felt that officeholders spend so much time raising money that they don’t have time todo the job they were elected to do,” said a moderator from Louisville. A moderator from RapidCity, South Dakota, heard the same thing. “Our group,” she said, “said people in Washingtonare spending too much time raising money and not enough time doing their job.”

Most participants saw the issue in national terms and talked about the federal government.But some pointed to local manifestations. A moderator from Gibsonia, Pennsylvania, said thatin his forum, people talked about a developer who wanted land rezoned. In Columbus, Ohio, amoderator reported that people told stories about building contractors “who were bigcontributors and not held accountable for the quality of what they built.” A moderator fromHonolulu said people there talked about legalized gambling, saying “big money is coming in[and participants were afraid that] the lobbyists will win, even though polls show most peopledon’t want it.”

Participants said the third way that money influences politics is perhaps the most serious ofall – the alienating effect it has on ordinary Americans. Participants said they, and a greatmany Americans like them, feel shut out from the political process. A student at theOklahoma State University was blunt, saying, “If you’re not wealthy, you don’t matter.” Awoman from Portland, Oregon, said alienation is greatest among certain groups. “Fromgrowing up in a lower socioeconomic background,” she said, “I know [that the impact ofmoney] makes poor people feel like their only choice is not to participate because theirinterests and values aren’t represented by the billionaires or big money.”

2. The Impact of Money on the Public Dialogue: People in theNational Issues Forums said that beyond its harmful impact ongovernment and elections, money corrupts the “public dialogue,” theexchange of ideas espoused by candidates, officeholders, and otherleaders that citizens hear, consider, and deliberate about. Participantsoperationally defined the issue of money and politics in public terms – interms of the public’s right to hear. Money, they said, both limits the voicespeople hear and amplifies some at the expense of others. The net effect,they said, is that many people do not hear leaders who speak to theirconcerns or articulate their deepest values.

Defining the Issue in Public Terms: In 1981, Public Agenda, a nonpartisan researchorganization, conducted a comprehensive study of Americans’ attitudes about free speech andfreedom of the press. That report, The Speaker and the Listener, found that most people define“freedom of speech” in public terms. That is, people operationally conceive of “freedom ofspeech,” not in terms of the ability of speakers to say whatever they want, but in terms of theability of citizens to listen or to hear all that any public speaker might say.

The report said that since most citizens do not think of themselves as public speakers, theyfeel that the essential freedom to be protected by the First Amendment is citizens’ right tolisten or hear all the voices in the marketplace of ideas. If people lack the ability to hear all


voices, they cannot consider and decide about issues and candidates. Only after deliberatingabout issues and candidates can the public set the boundaries of political permission withinwhich policy will enjoy broad, deep, enduring public support.

In the preforum, participants said money harms the public dialogue in two ways: first, itrestricts the number of voices the public can hear. “Instead of the best people as leaders,”said a Detroit man, “we’re getting people who have been paid for.” A Des Moines woman said,“Without a lot of political contributions, new leaders can’t participate or run for office.” Asmany as 84 percent agreed that money limits the voices people can hear during a campaignbecause “high campaign costs discourage good people from running for office.” (See Table 1.)

Preforum participants also said that money amplifies certain voices at the expense of others.A man in St. Paul said, “Money talks! [If you have] more money, your voice is louder.” Amoderator from California said, “People in our forum agreed that money buys a great bigmegaphone. And that without money, it’s like your battery is dead.” Participants said thatbecause the public cannot consider challengers who can’t get their message out, 79 percentagreed “current election laws favor those who already hold office.” (See Table 1.)

Because the voices in the public dialogue are either limited or amplified, many citizens,participants said, find it hard to hear someone who speaks to them, addresses their concerns,or talks about their needs. A woman from Detroit said that the “little guy’s” voice is not heard,adding, “When a wealthy guy gets elected, he’ll pass laws that help his rich friends instead ofhelping the little guy who can barely pay for his children’s shoes.”

3. Money and Politics and the News Media: Understanding howpeople define this issue helps clarify why so many Americans feelfrustrated by the news media. Instead of helping the public understandcomplex public issues and sort through information and arguments aboutthem, forum participants identified five ways that the news mediaexacerbate the problem.

Money and Politics and the News Media: Participants said the news media intensify theproblems caused by money in five ways:

First, instead of countering the effects of money, which restricts the voices the publichears, the media further limit those voices while simultaneously filtering informationso that people do not hear directly from public leaders. A moderator from Des Moinessaid, “Our group said people’s willingness to donate to a campaign depends on a[candidate’s] viability, which is [determined] by how TV presents the campaign.” Aman from Detroit said, “Instead of our information coming directly from the mouth ofthe candidates, it comes from the way the news about them is reported.”

The second way the media add to the problem, a number of participants said, is bynot presenting issues fairly. A woman from Panama City, Florida, said “At one timeyou could not tell what a certain announcer was in favor of. But those days are gone.”A moderator from Du Page, Illinois, said “In our forum, people felt that the media donot just report what they see, they put their own spin on the news.” In Columbus,Ohio, people felt that “opinions are formed, not informed” by the media.


The third way the media was felt to exacerbate problems caused by money was thatthey do not help people sort through manipulative, deceptive ads. “How does theaverage person know [if] what’s on television is true, or deceitful or manipulative?”asked a woman in a forum in Des Moines. A moderator from Rockville, Maryland, said,“In our forum, the media was seen as an instrument of corruption [instead ofclarification].” A moderator from Gibsonia, Pennsylvania, said participants there feltthat “special interests should not be on TV because there’s no filter for what is trueand not true.”

Fourth, a number of participants complained that the news media focus too much onoverly personal information. A Florida man said, “I wouldn’t run for public office[because] of fear of the warping of any point of view [of mine] so that it would beportrayed in an unfair way.” An Iowa man said:

Many people won’t run for office because [they worry about] “How muchof your life do you want under the microscope?” Maybe something inyour past could be misconstrued. In that aspect, you’re not at themercy of the public. You’re at the mercy of the press.

Finally, some said the media intensify cynicism. An Iowa man said the reason thepublic thinks all officeholders are crooked is because of the media. “And that,” headded, “really encourages young people to say, my vote doesn’t count anyway.” Awoman from Portland, Oregon, said:

All we hear in the media is that all this money is out there, and that it’s being sent to certain [candidates]. But that’s all [the information] weget. Which leaves us with an uncomfortable feeling [but not enoughinformation to do anything].

4. The Desire for a Level Playing Field: Defining the issue in terms of people’s right to hear or listen also helps explain why so many participants said we should reduce the influence of money by “leveling the playing field” in terms of elections.

Level the Playing Field: Time and again, participants said that, instead of a system thatallows just only candidates with money to get their message out, all candidates should have aroughly equal chance of being heard and considered by the public (with “roughly” leftundefined). “We need to make an even playing field,” said a man from Roslyn Heights, NewYork. “We’d like to see some sort of leveling of the playing field for political candidates runningfor office,” said a woman from Des Moines. One of the hundreds of people who participated inan on-line forum wrote, “There needs to be a greater sense of inclusion in politics that couldbe created if candidates for office were forced to stand on more equal ground with each other.”

The principle underlying the desire for a more level playing field was to ensure that voters areable to consider all candidates and points of view. A man from Poughkeepsie said, “We shouldbe willing to let all candidates be heard [because that will] ensure that the interests of thepeople are served.” An Oklahoma State University student said, “Every candidate shouldhave a chance, and that chance should be as fair as possible.”


When they considered just how to level the playing field, many favored putting new limits oncontributions, especially by organizations. In Topeka, participants wanted to “limit the flow ofmoney toward politics.” A woman from Rindge, New Hampshire, said “The amount of moneygoing for [candidates] to use has to be equalized so all the candidates can get theirinformation out to the people.” In the postforum questionnaire, 70 percent favored strictlylimiting how much money citizens and special interests can give to political causes. (See Table2.)

Another idea some favored was to shorten campaigns. Moderators at a forum in Columbus,Ohio, said participants there felt that “campaigns should be one-month long,” with onewoman pointing to the British system as a model. A man from Des Moines agreed, saying,“Shortening campaigns [would] at least be part of the answer [because] no matter how muchmoney you raise, you’d have a limited amount of time to spend it.”

5. Easier Access to the Media to Level the Playing Field: A largemajority of participants said the way to “level the playing field” is give allmajor candidates for public office free or low-cost airtime on televisionand radio. That way, they said, the public would be able to more clearlyhear the voices and messages of those who seek to lead.

Free or Low-Cost Access to the Media: In most forums, participants talked about the needfor access to the media and how that relates to the problems of money and politics. A numberof them said the need for so much money is driven by the high cost of advertising, especiallyon television. “The greatest sucking sound for money is for the media and the cost ofportraying my political point of view in a 15- or 30-second commercial and doing thatthousands of times in a campaign,” said an Iowa man. A woman from Panama City, Florida,said, “Some candidates weren’t heard because they didn’t have enough money.” People in anAtlanta forum, a moderator said, felt that “the cost of television ads is prohibitive.”

Many participants were concerned about access. A woman from Hoschton, Georgia, said “I’mconcerned about access to the media of candidates from smaller parties.” A college studentfrom Florida complained that when she went to vote, “There was a list of candidates I’d neverheard of, and I wish I knew something about their views.”

Many participants said candidates would not need so much money and the playing fieldwould be more level if radio and television time were free (or at least available to candidates ata very low cost). A Florida man said, “People running for office should have free and equalairtime [because] it’s important that everybody hear their views.” A man from Poughkeepsiesaid, “In Canada, every candidate gets free airtime.” A number of participants wondered whycandidates have to pay in the U.S. In Atlanta, a moderator said her group asked whycandidates have to pay “since the public owns the airways.” In the postforum questionnaire,63 percent favored requiring radio and TV stations to give free airtime to candidates. (SeeTable 2.)


6. Using Public Financing to Level the Playing Field: A majorityof participants said the way to “level the playing field” is through publicfinancing of political campaigns, which would enable more voices to beheard while simultaneously reducing the importance of contributions.However, a sizable minority opposed this idea.

Support for Public Financing: Most participants said the best way to ensure that allcandidates have a roughly equal chance of being heard is through a system of publicfinancing. Forum participants favored public financing by 53 to 40 percent, EVEN IF thatwould cost taxpayers more money. (See Table 6.)

“People in our forum favored leveling the playing field with public money and public financingof political campaigns,” said a moderator in Laurel Lake, Missouri. A man from Dallas saidthat public financing would “let all those who are campaigning come to the top so we couldsee [all of] them.” He added, “We need to see everybody, which we can’t do now, so we’ll neverknow if [the ones we didn’t see] were good candidates.” A moderator from Honolulu saidpeople there strongly favored public financing. And a woman from Poughkeepsie said:

Publicly funded campaigns would eliminate the presence and influence ofmoney in politics. Public financing would be relatively inexpensive and wouldprobably result in a higher voter turnout.

Some participants saw public financing as an acceptable, but less than ideal solution, andfavored it despite some reservations. A man from Portland, Oregon, said “I’m not sure publicfinancing is the total answer, but I think we need to recognize that people [lose trust] whenthey see reports that a big contributor gave five-hundred-thousand dollars.” A moderator fromSun City, Arizona, said:

People in our forum said public funding would be an okay solution. But theirreal goal was to level the playing field because now money “buys” issues andvoices.

But a large minority opposed public financing and some were strongly opposed. A moderatorfrom Gibsonia, Pennsylvania, said “While people in our forum wanted to make the campaignprocess more equitable, they also felt that ‘equality is socialism, not democracy’ and so didnot favor public financing.” A moderator from Topeka said people there said it is “notacceptable to give money to candidates they don’t support.” A woman from Muncy,Pennsylvania, said “My problem with public funding is I don’t want my money going to acandidate who supports abortion.”

And a fair number of participants left the forums mulling over the issue. “Every candidateshould have an equal chance, but I’m not sure how to go about doing this,” said a collegestudent from Stillwater, Oklahoma. “No matter what we do in terms of a public financing law,they’ll probably find loopholes in it,” said a college student in Aberdeen, South Dakota.


7. Changed Perceptions about Lobbyists and Special Interests:As people deliberate about a complex issue in what is usually a two-hourforum, they learn more about it and have time to consider other points ofview. A common outcome is that people’s attitudes are modified as theytake in new information or considerations. In these forums, participants’views about lobbyists and special interests changed, with a good deal ofpeople’s initial antipathy melting as they learned and talked about therole of these groups.

Changed Perceptions: Before and after the forums, participants felt that lobbyists andspecial interests have too much political influence. In the postforum questionnaire, 74 percentagreed that “lobbyists for special interests have too much power with public officials” and by amargin of 55 to 35, participants wanted to “curb the power of lobbyists, EVEN IF that meansreducing the power of interest groups that speak for you.” (See Tables1and 6.)

But as they deliberated, participants’ antipathy toward lobbyists and special interests wasreduced as they learned more about the role of both groups, including that they themselvesmight well be represented by one or both. A moderator from Columbus, Ohio, said “In ourgroup, there was a broader understanding of what lobbyists are and less hostility towardthem.” A moderator from El Paso, Texas, said the same thing happened there. “We had a lotof initial tension between those who thought that ‘lobbyist’ is a dirty word versus those whothought we’d be in a pickle without them,” she said, adding that much of that sentiment wasblunted as they deliberated about the issue. A moderator from Winona, Minnesota, said “Ourgroup felt that lobbyists have a right to have a cause and to fight and persuade for thatcause.” A man from Valparaiso, Indiana asked:

Who says “special interests” are bad? Suppose I belong to the Sierra Club andwe [use our influence to] keep the country clean. Is that a bad thing?

Most participants came to distinguish between lobbying, which they saw as both necessaryand inevitable, and giving gifts or honoraria or special favors to lawmakers, which they saidshould be illegal. To general agreement, a St. Paul woman said, “Lobbyists should be gettinginformation to [officeholders], but they should not be able to give gifts or money.” Amoderator from Mount Pleasant, Michigan, said that people in her forum wanted to “limitlobbyists’ influence but clearly saw that there’s an important place for them.” A man fromDes Moines said, “The people representing us are not super geniuses and they need someoneto say, ‘Here’s something [you should know about] this issue.’” But, he added, electedofficials do not need “someone saying, ‘Let’s take you to Cancun and spend a week therestudying the issue at a swimming pool.’” In the postforum questionnaire, 69 percent said weshould forbid lawmakers from accepting all gifts and favors from lobbyists. (See Table 2.)

8. Changed Perceptions about Disclosure: Almost withoutexception, participants favored full, immediate disclosure of all campaigncontributions, including disclosure in the media and on the Internet. Butas they deliberated, participants said such disclosure would not reallycurb the influence of money or remedy the problems they had identified.

Changed Perceptions: Both before and after the forums, nearly every participant favored full,complete and immediate disclosure of all campaign contributions, both in the news mediaand on the Internet. To general agreement, a woman at a forum in Portland, Oregon, said


“Average citizens don’t know who is doing the contributing. We don’t know how the money isused.” A moderator from Louisville said his group favored disclosure within 48 hours “so thatpeople can make up their minds about which interest groups favored which candidates.”

But as they deliberated, most participants said that disclosure would not solve the money-and-politics problems they had identified. First, they said, citizens would be hard-pressed toknow the connection between a contributor’s interests and a candidate. A woman fromMuncy, Pennsylvania, said ”Disclosure, by itself, is not enough [because] people need to findthe reason behind the donation as well.” A moderator from Fairfield, California, said “In ourforum, the key question was the relationship between donors and policy; that’s far moreimportant than just being saturated with information.” A moderator from Laurel Lake,Missouri, said “Our group felt that citizens have no way of tracing the connections betweenbig donors and candidates.”

Some participants offered a second reason, saying full, strict, immediate disclosure would behard to enforce in a timely manner. A participant in an on-line forum wrote: “If a candidategot a large contribution a few weeks before the election and refused to disclose it, what couldthe average person do?”

Indeed, the more they considered this approach, the more participants said that disclosurewould not solve the problems they identified. “Disclosure might cut down on corruption, but itwould not [do anything to] level the playing field,” said a woman from Poughkeepsie. “Ourgroup felt that disclosure would not solve the problem because a contributor would stillexpect something in return,” said a moderator in Valparaiso, Indiana. A moderator fromGibsonia, Pennsylvania, said “No one in our group was opposed to disclosure, but no onethought it would solve the problem.”

9. Mixed Feelings about Direct Democracy Measures:Participants’ attitudes about this issue also evolved over the course of theforums. While most favored the idea of giving the public more of a directsay in running public affairs, a fair number saw problems with the ideaand gave it, at best, their qualified support.

Direct Democracy: Participants generally liked the concept of enabling the public to havemore say through the use of referenda, ballot initiatives, and the recall of elected officials. Inthe postforum questionnaire, 62 percent agreed that “complex rules make it too hard forordinary citizens to put issues on the ballot” and 55 percent wanted to “make it easier forvoters to recall elected officials.” (See Tables 1 and 2.)

But participants’ support for direct democracy measures was qualified, with some expressingconcern that the public’s mood or top-of-the-head opinion at a given point in time might beintemperate and unwise. A woman from Portland, Oregon, said “There are a lot of things youcould put on the ballot that would pass that would not be for the good of the state or thecountry.” A man from Rindge, New Hampshire, expressed a similar view, saying, “A lot oftime we’d try to ‘recall’ someone based on the emotion of the moment.”

Others, including some participants with direct experience with ballot initiatives, were not soenthusiastic about this approach because of what they saw as unnecessary complexity oreven deception. For example, a Michigan woman said, “These ballot [initiatives] use


doubletalk [and] make it so that a ‘yes’ is a ‘no,’ instead of using layman’s terms so thateverybody can understand it.” People in California, a New York-area man said, frequentlycomplain that television advertising for or against a ballot proposition is designed to misleadand deceive, making it difficult, even for voters who have a clear preference, to know what tovote for in order to exercise that preference. A moderator from Du Page, Illinois, said “Ourgroup was concerned that when it came to ballot measures, the public would not be engagedand thus would not clearly understand an issue.”

10. Interlocking Issues: Participants see “money and politics” not as asingle issue, but as several connected, interlocking issues that aredefined in public terms.

Connected, Interlocking Issues: Some experts might say that the American people, asrepresented by participants in the National Issues Forums, have serious misperceptions aboutthe issue of money and politics. They might say, for example, that people’s discontent withthe news media does not take into account the First Amendment or what is within a station’sability to control. And they might say that the public does not know even the basics aboutprior reforms or about key issues like campaign finance reform.

But to understand people’s thinking we must understand that people define the issue inpublic, not expert terms.

• First, people believe the political system favors those with money, that money bends or warps or twists the system so that it routinely serves special interests instead of the broad, general public interest.

• Second, people believe that money skews the public dialogue by limiting the information they receive, making it hard for people to hear all the voices in the marketplace of ideas or understand what public leaders and candidates truly stand for.

• Third, they believe that instead of serving the public by counterbalancing all this, the news media actually exacerbate the problem.

Understanding how the public defines the issue helps us see the interlocking or interconnectednature of the issue in the public mind. An examination of this summary comment from aFlorida woman reveals that she sees seven different issues related to money and politics, eachnumbered below:

We should pursue the issue of allowing candidates free airtime (1) on radio andtelevision in order to have their voices heard without having to cram their ideas(2) into exorbitantly expensive (3) 30-second spots. If candidates’ views weremade more accessible (4) to the public, [people] might take a greater interest (5)in picking a qualified candidate and not be so disillusioned (6) with what theyconsider to be corrupt leadership. And qualified leaders would be more likely toserve the public interest (7).


Questions and Answers about the Forums

I. The Public Approach

Not quite.

While some leaders see the public as deeply concerned about this issue,others point out that the number of Americans who name “campaignfinance reform” as a priority varies from a high of no more than 37percent to a low of 1 percent, depending on question wording. And so the“conventional wisdom” would seem to consist of more than one school ofthought.

Participants in this year’s National Issues Forums were troubled, not somuch about the narrow issue of “campaign finance reform” but about thebroader issue of “money and politics.” Forum participants saw “money inpolitics” as an underlying cause of the public’s alienation, cynicism, andfeeling of disconnection from the political system. “There’s a cancer inAmerican politics. And that cancer is money,” said a man at a forum inPoughkeepsie, New York.

Participants defined the issue to encompass not only campaigncontributions but also the day-to-day influence of money on governmentaldecision making, usually at the federal level, and the impact of money onwhat we will call “the public dialogue.”

Participants did not think in expert terms. For example, there was almostno mention of hard or soft money, let alone the distinction between thetwo, and little talk of PACs; and even well-publicized campaign financereform measures such as the McCain-Feingold bill were rarely mentioned.

Importantly, however, “expert knowledge” is different from “publicknowledge.” While it is true that people in the forums did not have anexpert’s understanding of the ins and outs of this issue, they were deeplyconcerned about the corrosive effect of money on the nation’s publicdialogue, public policy, and political system.

With real distress.

Forum participants said that because of the influence of money, thepolitical system is warped or twisted so that it routinely subordinates thepublic interest to special, moneyed interests. A woman at a forum in St.Paul said, “Basically it only takes one or two people with a lot of money tooffset the influence of many, many voters.” A woman from Panama City,Florida, said “Right now the whole system is broken.”

1. Does the

public connect

to this issue

as the

conventional

wisdom

suggests?

Questions

2. How does the

public approach

the issue?


Yes.

Participants said that instead of counterbalancing the influence of money,the news media exacerbate the problem.

The role of the media, participants suggested, is to help citizensunderstand their choices, including the costs and consequences of each,so that people can sort through the cacophony of voices vying for theirattention and make a decision about them. The media’s role, accordingly,should be to offset the influence of money (which skews what people hear)by helping the public understand all that exists in the “marketplace ofideas.”

But instead of enabling citizens to hear all the viewpoints that deservetheir consideration, the media, participants said, present issues narrowly,and often in terms of two extremes. For example, a moderator in Atlantasaid participants there felt that the media always present issues in termsof two sides – liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. And as aresult, the average person often finds it hard to locate his or her ownpoint of view or deep concerns expressed in a polarized public dialogue.

II. The Deliberation

A number of values were at play in the discussion.

The Public Interest. Participants felt that the common public interest isregularly subordinated to the narrow, special interest of those withmoney. A moderator from Vallejo, California, said people in that forum“felt that they are not represented because politicians serve large donorsrather than the people who cast the votes.”

Integrity. Many participants said the need for campaign contributions isso great that it is a constant threat to officials’ independence andintegrity. In an on-line forum, one participant wrote, “A democracycommitted to a culture of integrity should have, as one of its highestvalues, the principle that elected officials ought not to be tied to specialinterests. They should serve on behalf of all citizens, no matter how pooror unable to contribute.”

Fairness. Participants felt that all candidates for office should be able tocompete on a roughly level playing field so that all had a chance to makethemselves known and their views considered. In a day-to-day sense,participants felt that the public should be able to consider all seriousideas about public issues. A man from Albertson, New York, said “Peopledon’t have equal opportunity to run for office.”

The American Dream. Though there was no consensus about how to makethis happen, participants wanted to ensure that well-qualified people arenot foreclosed from seeking office because of a lack of personal wealth. Astudent from Stillwater, Oklahoma, said “Only those with a lot of moneyseem to run [for public office]. But being wealthy does not mean someoneis qualified.”

3. Are there

other

dimensions of

the issue that

people in the

forums see?

4. What values

were at play in

the discussion?


Freedom. A number of participants said that individuals should be free tospend their money as they choose, and wanted to balance this freedomagainst their desire to curb the influence of money. A student fromAberdeen, South Dakota, said that while people are frustrated by thepolitical system, “they also value the freedom of doing what they want fora candidate they support.”

Deliberation had two pronounced effects.

First, participants’ antipathy toward “lobbyists” and “special interests”abated as they came to see that they might be represented by either. ASouth Dakota college student said, “As a future educator, I want my voice[as represented by teachers’ groups] to be heard in Washington.”

Second, deliberation affected how people felt about disclosure. Whilenearly everyone favored full, immediate disclosure of contributions, mostsaid, as they deliberated, that disclosure would not reduce the influenceof money on politics because:

Contributions could easily be disguised;

Citizens would find it hard to sort through so much information and make connections between contributors and their interests; and

Strict disclosure would be hard to enforce in a timely fashion and voters would be pressed to quickly process so much information.

A New Hampshire man asked, “How can you enforce a disclosurerequirement if we can’t enforce any other kind of regulation in politics?”

As they deliberated, people agreed that money:

a) Challenges democratic values.

Participants strongly felt that government should first serve the publicinterest. But because of money, they said, officials, especially at the federal level but also at the state and local level, give higher priority tothe interests of those with money. A woman from Dallas said, “You still have the opportunity to buy government. Which means I influence how all of you live your lives.”

b) Reduces people’s sense of being connected to the political system.

Participants said that while ordinary Americans want to be moreconnected to the political system, they are alienated by the influence of money. “What people like me think just doesn’t count anymore,” said a man from St. Paul. “Because it’s the politicians, with the money from lobbyists and special interests, taking care of their friends [instead of ordinary people].”

5. What effect

did deliberation

have?

6. What mattered

to people as they

deliberated?


III. The Outcomes

Yes.

First, they said that money corrupts the political system so that it isresponsive, not to the public interest, but to special, moneyed interests.

Second, participants said that money corrupts the public dialogue byskewing and limiting the information people receive, making it hard forthem to understand what candidates stand for, or the true costs andconsequences of various positions on key issues.

As a result, they said, many Americans are alienated from public life.

Yes.

Participants called for more public education and more discussion aboutthe issue in order to raise its visibility and help people see what is atstake. A participant from Stillwater, Oklahoma, said “We need to keepdeliberating, examine all the options.” A participant from Honoluluechoed this sentiment saying that what was covered in the forum was “thetip of the iceberg. We need to go into greater depth.”

In terms of specifics, participants said these steps would reduce theinfluence of money and politics:

Permit campaign contributions only by individuals, limit what anyone can contribute, and shorten campaigns;

Prohibit lobbyists from giving gifts and require full, immediate disclosure for all contributions; and

Make sure all serious candidates have free or low-cost access to the media, use public financing of elections, and take other steps to “level the playing field” and ensure that more candidates have afair, reasonable chance to be heard and considered.

However, these views should be seen, not as policy prescriptions, but as“proxies” or guidelines for change that stems from participants’ valuesand their deeply rooted concerns.

7. Is a “public

voice”

recognizable?

8. Was any firm

common ground

for action

revealed?


Some experts might say the public, as represented by people in theforums, is poorly informed about this issue. They might say, for example,that the public’s discontent with the media does not take into account theFirst Amendment and that the public does not know certain basics aboutthe issue, including the political lines of demarcation around campaignfinance reform.

But understanding public thinking about the issue requiresunderstanding what it means for the public to know something, i.e.,public knowledge, as well as the framework people bring to an issue.

Participant’s knowledge of this issue – like the public’s knowledge aboutso many other issues, including education and health care – comes froma combination of concern, direct experience, common sense, and whatpeople talk about with their friends and family members as well as whatthey learn from the news media.

Despite all the news coverage about campaign finance reform over thepast few years, participants simply did not talk about money and politicsin those terms. And so, if the issue is framed in terms of “campaignfinance,” most people cannot see a role for themselves. But to most people“money and politics” is a totally different issue.

9. At what stage

is the public on

this issue? Has

the public’s

thinking

evolved?

10. What needs

to happen next

in the national

dialogue?


People’s Thinking after the Forums:The Impact of Deliberation

There is no single, uniform effect of participating in a National Issues Forum.Deliberating with other citizens about a public issue often has an impact, sometimesa dramatic impact on people’s thinking. But the nature of that impact is sometimessimilar and sometimes not.

As people deliberated about money and politics, they often learned more and beganto develop a deeper, clearer, more certain judgment about what to do. “I know a littlemore now to help me form an opinion,” said a man from Dallas. A Florida man said,“The forum opened my mind to other approaches to regulate money in politics suchas funding elections through public funds.” A man from Rapid City, South Dakota,said that he had learned about the issue and that “now I can brainstorm ways to fixthe problems.”

Some became more concerned about the issue. “I’m more angry than before theforum,” said a woman from Hoschton, Georgia. A man from Hyde Park, New York,agreed, saying “I’m more vehement in my belief that there needs to be reform.”

Sometimes people left feeling upbeat, including a Georgia woman who said, “Myawareness [about] finding an acceptable and equitable solution has been brightened.”But some reached the opposite view. “I realize the problems are far more complexthan would lend themselves to simple solutions,” said a man from Poughkeepsie. “I’mnot confident that true reform is possible,” said a woman from Des Moines.

Some participants including a college student from Stillwater, Oklahoma, said theyhad changed their mind about some aspects of the issue. “I had a very one-sidedopinion on several issues, mainly lobbyists, [and] now I have a much broader view.”Others said their preforum thinking had been strengthened. “I’m even more sure thatcampaign finance reform needs to happen,” said a woman from Independence,Missouri. “I believe even more strongly in full disclosure,” said a man from Adrian,Michigan.

Finally, it was frequently the case with these National Issues Forums that peoplewalked away mulling over the issue or stewing about it. “I understand now that thisis all very complicated and that finding one true answer is next to impossible,” said awoman from Rapid City, South Dakota. “My thinking is more muddied about theissue. But it’s a thoughtful kind of confusion,” said a woman from Osage Beach,Missouri.


Deliberation by High School Students

Below is a summary of what happened when high school students deliberated in, andsometimes moderated, forums at the 4-H Association National Conference in Chevy Chase,Maryland; Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York; Montgomery Community College inRockville, Maryland; Potomac High School in Dumfries, Virginia; and Northern University inAberdeen, South Dakota.

The Students’ Starting Point: One moderator said the issue was not especiallyrelevant to students who were 14 and 15. “Initially, most of the younger kids found theissue confusing,” said a moderator at the 4-H forums. Indeed, a great many highschool students were “not sure” about a host of questionnaire items before the forums.But in Winona, Minnesota, where students deliberated about the issue for two, two-hour sessions, a moderator said the more they deliberated, the more they learned “andtheir interest in it increased a lot.” And some students, especially the 17-year-olds,were interested in the issue from the beginning of the forum. “Our kids were from aleadership training program,” said a moderator in Rockville, Maryland. “And many ofthem were more informed about this issue than they are about many others.”

Regardless of their initial interest, the vast majority of the students came at the issuewith a cynical attitude. “Our kids felt that people with money run democracy,” said amoderator at the 4-H forums. “Our students were very cynical and felt that moneydirties the system,” said a moderator in Hempstead, New York. A high school teacherin Dumfries, Virginia, said his group felt that “there is too much money corruptingpublic officials and the political process.”

As They Deliberated: The students did not always agree about what to do. Some,including many at the 4-H forums and in Winona, Minnesota, wanted to capcontributions and campaign spending. But in Dumfries, Virginia, and Aberdeen, SouthDakota, most opposed this step, saying any limit on spending or donations wouldamount to limiting freedom of speech. On Long Island, students favored publicfinancing. But in South Dakota and at the 4-H forums, most students opposed thisidea.

When it came to lobbyists and disclosure, the students’ thinking evolved, with initialhostility toward lobbyists easing as students learned more about them. “Our kids feltthat while lobbyists should not have so much influence or be able to corrupt theprocess, they are necessary,” said a moderator from Rockville, Maryland. Moreover,while there was strong support for disclosure, many students concluded that thisreform would not solve the problem. “Our students said, ‘People will always find a wayto get around any law,” said a moderator from Dumfries, Virginia.

The Impact of Deliberation: The reaction of the young people to the forum experiencewas often dramatic. In Rockville, Maryland, students felt that though they disagreed,they acknowledged and respected their right to do so. And sometimes, students left theforums stewing about the issue. A young woman from Aberdeen, South Dakota, saidthat in the course of the 90-minute forum she had “done about 300 [mental] flip-flops”about different aspects of the issue.


Questionnaire Results

NIF issue books include a pre- and postforum questionnaire that participants may fill out atthe forum. In the tables below, we report the questionnaire results from 1,457 participantswho sent in questionnaires by August 1, 2001. The results are analyzed separately so that theviews of 581 high school students can be compared to the responses of participants 18 andolder.

Those who filled out the questionnaires are a self-selected group and thus the questionnaireoutcomes should not be construed as polling data using a probability sample that yieldsresults within a statistically precise margin of sampling error. The outcomes should beconsidered in conjunction with the rest of this analysis as indicative of how a diverse group ofAmericans feel about money and politics after deliberating together, considering other pointsof view, and weighing the costs and consequences of different approaches to the issue.

Participants’ Pre- and Postforum Views

Large majorities said money has a harmful effect on politics.

Agree with Statement

Table 1 Preforum Postforum DifferenceStatement: % % %

High campaign costs discourage good people from running for office 84 84 —

Candidates depend too heavily on large campaign gifts from wealthy donors 78 79 1

Current election laws favor those who already hold office 74 79 5

Lobbyists for special interests have too much power with public officials 69 74 5

Complex rules make it too hard for ordinary citizens to put issues on the ballot 59 62 3

Large numbers favored a number of steps to reduce the influence of money.


Table 2 Preforum Postforum DifferenceWe Should: % % %

Strictly limit the amounts of money citizens and special interests can give to 65 70 5political causes

Require radio and TV stations to give free airtime to candidates 64 63 1

Forbid lawmakers from accepting all gifts and favors from lobbyists 62 69 7

Make it easier for voters to recall elected officials 52 55 3

Let candidates raise as much money as they want, but strictly enforce 46 49 3disclosure laws

Lift restrictions on campaign fund-raising to ensure that all candidates have a 43 49 6chance to win


The number that “strongly” favored a number of measures increased after the forums.

“Strongly” Agree with Statement

Table 3 Preforum Postforum Difference Statement: % % %

High campaign costs discourage good people from running for office 40 48 8

Current election laws favor those who already hold office 34 41 7

Forbid lawmakers from accepting gifts and favors from lobbyists 34 44 10

Strictly limit the amount of money special interests can give to political causes 28 37 9

Adults’ Preforum Views Compared to High School Students

Adults were more likely than high school students to say that current laws favor incumbents and that lobbyists have too much power.


Table 4 18 & Over 17 & Under Difference Statement: % % %

High campaign costs discourage good people from running for office 87 81 +6

Current election laws favor those who already hold office 83 61 +22

Candidates depend too heavily on large campaign gifts from wealthy donors 82 73 +9

Lobbyists for special interests have too much power with public officials 77 56 +21

Complex rules make it too hard for ordinary citizens to put issues on the ballot 62 55 +7

Restricting political donations infringes on the free speech of citizens 33 34 -1

Adults were more likely to favor a number of measures to reduce the influence of money.


Table 5 18 & Over 17 & Under Difference

We Should: % % %

Require radio and TV stations to give free airtime to candidates 72 52 +20

Forbid lawmakers from accepting all gifts and favors from lobbyists 71 48 +23

Strictly limit the amounts of money citizens and special interests can give to 70 59 +11political causes

Make it easier for voters to recall elected officials 56 48 +8

Let candidates raise as much money as they want, but strictly enforce 45 48 -3 disclosure laws

Lift restrictions on campaign fund-raising to ensure that all candidates have a 36 55 -19 chance to win


Participants’ Postforum Views

After the forums, participants wanted to curb the power of lobbyists and use public fundsto finance elections, but opposed removing the restrictions on political donations.

Strongly/Somewhat Strongly/Somewhat Difference Table 6 Favor Oppose %Statement: % %

Curb the power of lobbyists for special interests, EVEN IF 55 35 +20 that means reducing the power of interest groups that speak for you

Reduce the power of special interests by using public funds 53 40 +13to finance elections, EVEN IF that would cost taxpayers moremoney

Remove restrictions on political donations, EVEN IF that 26 65 -39means that some candidates will have much more money than their opponents

Demographics (Participants 18 and over)

Table 7 Table 8Are you male or female? How Much Schooling Have You Completed?

% %

Female 52 High school grad or less 15

Male 47 Some college 34

No answer 1 College grad or more 51

No answer 1

Table 9 Table 10 Table 11Are you? How old are you? Where Do You Live?

% % %

White 83 18 – 29 47 Northeast 22 African American 4 30 – 49 19 South 10 Asian American 3 50 – 64 20 Midwest 24Native American 2 65 or older 15 Southwest 13Hispanic/Latino 2 No Answer — West 5Other 4 Other 5No answer 2 No Answer 22

Demographics (Participants 17 and under)

Table 12 Table 13 Table 14Are you male or female? Where Do You Live? Are You?

% % %Northeast 17 White 85

Female 62 South 9 African American 3Male 38 Midwest 61 Asian American 5No answer — Southwest 3 Native American 2

West 2 Hispanic/Latino 1Other 4 Other 4No Answer 5 No Answer 1


In preparing this analysis of people’sthinking about “Money and Politics: WhoOwns Democracy?” Doble Research drew ona sample of forums in 44 states and theDistrict of Columbia from the hundreds offorums that took place across the country.Five research methods were used:

“A Public Voice” Forums

We transcribed and analyzed four NationalIssues Forums videotaped for the annualPBS special, “A Public Voice,” hosted byFrank Sesno. Those forums took place inPanama City, Florida; Des Moines, Iowa;Rindge, New Hampshire; and Portland,Oregon.

Moderator and Convenor Interviews

We conducted 22 telephone interviews withforum moderators and convenors. We askedthem to describe people’s main concerns,their starting points on the issue, the costsand consequences they took into considera-tion, and the shared understanding or com-mon ground for action that emerged. Theforums were held at:

1. The Carter Library, Atlanta, GA

2. The College of DuPage, Glen Ellyn, IL

3. The General Federated Women’s Club,

Mount Pleasant, MI

4. Gulf Coast Community College, Panama City, FL

5. Hawaii State Capital, Honolulu, HI

6. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

7. KCOS (Channel 13) live broadcast, El Paso, TX

8. Laurel Lake Retirement Community, Hudson, OH

9. Minnesota Humanities Commission, Winona, MN

10. Montgomery College, Rockville, MD

11. National 4-H Conference Center, Chevy Chase, MD

12. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

13. Outreach Center for the Baptist Church, Topeka, KS

14. Potomac High School, Dumfries, VA

15. Private Residence, Sun City, AZ

16. Public Library, Gibsonia, PA

17. St. Raphael Church, Louisville, KY

18. The Chiesman Foundation, Rapid City, SD

19. United Methodist Church, Fairfield, CA

20. Valparaiso Public Library, Valparaiso, IN

21. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

22. On-line forums with participants across the country

Forum Observations

We observed four National Issues Forums,listening to initial concerns and learninghow deliberation influenced people’sthinking. In addition, we interviewed twoparticipants and the moderator after eachforum. These forums were held at:

1. Northern State University, Aberdeen, SD

2. Dutchess Community College, Poughkeepsie, NY

3. State Correctional Institute, Muncy, PA

4. The Oklahoma Partnership for Public Deliberation

at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK

Questionnaire Results

Before and after a forum, participants wereasked to fill out a questionnaire that framesthe issue and identifies key tradeoffs fordifferent choices. We analyzed a total of1,457 pre- and postforum questionnaires,including 581 from high school students,received by August 1, 2001.

Research Forums

We conducted three research forums orfocus groups, each with a demographicallyrepresentative cross-section of up to a dozenpeople. The sessions paralleled NIF forumsin that participants viewed the starter video,filled out the pre- and postforumquestionnaires, and deliberated togetherabout the choices for about two hours. Theresearch forums were held in:

1. Detroit, MI 1/4/012. St. Paul, MN 2/22/013. Dallas, TX 5/17/01

Special thanks to the convenors and moderatorswho shared their forum reflections with us: JoyceButtermore, Renee Daugherty, Bennie Davis, JoelDiemond, Bill DiMascio, Michael D’Innocenzo,Larkin Dudley, Jim Erickson, Sadie Flucas, DeloresFoley, Monica Gomez, Tim Grove, JeanmarieHeriba, Steve Haseley, Margaret Holt, Terry Jack,Hanson Kappelman, Judith Kirkey, Karen Leith,Laurie Maak, Phyllis Nelson, Carole Paterson, CraigPaterson, Dave Patton, Russell Petty, JeanPinkerton, Joan Porter, Tracy Russman, BruceSmith, James Smith, Nathan Starr, Susan Taylor,Sue Williams, Kristi Wagner.

Methodology


Methodology

People who participated in the NIF forums analyzed for this report are a sample of thethousands of people who continue to deliberate about this issue in communities across thecountry. Forum participants represented in this report came from the following states andcommunities:

Alabama Kentucky Ohio Arizona Louisiana Oklahoma Arkansas Maryland Oregon California Michigan Pennsylvania Colorado Minnesota Rhode IslandConnecticut Mississippi South CarolinaDelaware Missouri South Dakota District of Columbia Montana Tennessee Florida Nebraska Texas Georgia New Hampshire Utah Hawaii New Jersey Virginia Illinois New Mexico Washington Indiana New York West Virginia Iowa North Carolina Wisconsin Kansas North Dakota Wyoming


National Issues Forums (NIF) bring togethercitizens to deliberate and make choices aboutchallenging social and political issues of theday. They have addressed issues such as theeconomy, education, health care, foreignaffairs, and crime.

Throughout the nation, thousands of civic,service, and religious organizations, as wellas libraries, high schools, and colleges,sponsor forums. The sponsoringorganizations select topics based on citizens’concerns, then design and coordinate theirown forum programs.

A Different Kind of Talk

No two forums are alike. While they rangefrom small study circles to large gatheringsmodeled after town meetings, all forums areunlike everyday conversations andadversarial debates. Since forums seek toincrease understanding of complicatedissues, participants need not start out withdetailed knowledge of an issue. Forumorganizers distribute issue books featuring anonpartisan overview of an issue and achoice of several public responses. Bypresenting each issue in a nonpartisan way,forums encourage participants to take a freshlook at the issues and at their ownconvictions.

In the forums, participants share theiropinions, their concerns, and theirknowledge. With the help of moderators, theissue books, and a “starter” videotape,participants weigh several possible ways forsociety to address a problem. They analyzeeach choice, the arguments for and againstit, and the tradeoffs and other implications ofthe choice. Moderators encourageparticipants as they gravitate to one option oranother, to examine their basic values asindividuals and as community members.

The Common Ground

Forums enrich participants’ thinking onpublic issues. Participants confront eachissue head-on, make an informed decisionabout how to address it, and come to termswith the likely consequences of their choices.In this deliberative process, participants often

accept choices that are not entirelyconsistent with their individual wishes andthat impose costs they had not initiallyconsidered. This happens because the forumprocess helps people see issues from differentpoints of view; participants use discussion todiscover, not persuade or advocate. The bestdeliberative forums can help participantsmove toward shared, stable, well-informedpublic judgments about important issues.

Participants may hold sharply differentopinions and beliefs, but in the forums theydiscuss their attitudes, concerns, andconvictions about each issue and, as a group,seek to resolve their conflicting priorities andprinciples. In this way, participants movefrom making individual choices, to makingchoices as members of a community – thekind of choices from which public action mayresult.

Building Community through PublicDeliberation

In a democracy, citizens must come togetherto find answers they can all live with whileacknowledging that individuals have differingopinions. Forums help people find areaswhere their interests and goals overlap,which allows a public voice to emerge thatcan give direction to public policy.

The forums are nonpartisan and do notadvocate a particular solution to any publicissue, nor should they be confused withreferenda or public opinion polls. Rather, theforums enable diverse groups of citizens todetermine together what direction they wantpolicy to take, what kinds of action andlegislation they favor, and what, for theircommon good, they oppose.

From Agreement to Action

Forums can lead to several kinds of publicaction. Generally, a public voice emerges inthe results of the forums, and that helps setthe government’s compass, since forumresults are shared with elected officials eachyear. Also, as a result of attending forums,individuals and groups may decide to takeaction individually or in association withothers to help remedy a public problem.

About National Issues Forums


About Doble ResearchDoble Research Associates is a public interest consulting firm that specializes in exploring,from a nonpartisan perspective, public and leadership opinion about complex public issuesincluding crime and corrections, education, health care, and teenage pregnancy. Each year,Doble Research prepares an “NIF Report on the Issues” that analyzes how citizens across thecountry are thinking about a difficult issue in National Issues Forums. Doble Research islocated in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey and can be contacted at www.DobleResearch.com orat (201) 568-7200.

Doble Research Clients and Partner Organizations:

FoundationsThe Center for Crime, Communities & Culture (Open

Society Institute/The Soros Foundation)

The Chiesman Foundation

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

The Community Life Foundation of Owensboro

The Englewood Community Foundation

The Fetzer Institute

The Walter and Elise Haas Fund

The Hager Educational Foundation

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

The Kellogg Foundation

The Kettering Foundation

The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

The Peninsula Community Foundation

The Pew Charitable Trust

The Seva Foundation

Government AgenciesThe Board of Pardons and Parole, State of Georgia

The Department of Corrections, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

The Department of Corrections, State of Indiana

The Department of Corrections, State of Vermont

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The Governor’s Family Council, State of Delaware

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC)

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

The National Parks Service, Nebraska

The Vermont Commission on Public Healthcare Values

and Priorities

Public Service OrganizationsThe American Judicature Society

The Audubon Area Community Services, Owensboro,

Kentucky

The Buckeye Association for School Administrators

The Center for Effective Public Policy

The Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM)

The Cleveland Summit on Education

The Council of Governors’ Policy Advisors

The Council of State Governments, Eastern Regional

Office

The Educational and Social Science Consortium

The General Federation of Women’s Clubs

The Harwood Institute

The National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC)

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)

The National Academy of Social Insurance

The National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI)

The National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI)

The Oklahoma State-Centered Project

The Pennsylvania Prison Society

The Points of Light Foundation

Public Agenda

The South Carolina State-Centered Project

The Southern Growth Policies Board (SGPB)

The Southern Regional Council

The Study Circle Resources Center (SCRC)

Weavings, A Journal of the Christian Spiritual Life

The West Virginia Center for Civic Life

The Western Governors’ Association

StatesThe State of Indiana

The State of New Hampshire

The State of North Carolina

The State of Oregon

The State of South Carolina

Colleges and UniversitiesThe College of DuPage

Institute on Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota

The Mershon Center at The Ohio State University

The University of California at Davis

The University of Delaware

CorporationsClark, Martire & Bartolomeo, Inc.

Simon and Schuster, Prentice Hall Division

Weiner’s Stores, Inc.

For information, contact:National Issues Forums Research100 Commons RoadDayton, Ohio 45459-2777

1-800-433-7834www.nifi.org

News & Politics

Nif money and politics report